The Cherry Orchard is a comedy, and we know these types of comedies are difficult for us to find any humor in. However, as we were reading this in class I found myself to be laughing every once in while. This tended to be because of how someone said a line, or realizing how random something was. I'm not sure that what is actually being said in the play is very humorous though. To me, the plotline thusfar has no element of comedy in it. I just see some funny lines or funny characters and think it is humorous because it's unexpected. Why do you think we tend to not initially understand the comedy in the books and plays that we are reading? Some of them weren't even written that long before our time period. Also, do you think there is a reason Chekhov made this partly comedy? I think the fact that it is a play and needs to be entertaining is part of the reason. But I also think that it is a little too early on to make much sense of the comedy in this story, much less why it's present. - kec-c Feb 28, 2008
I thoroughly enjoyed reading The Cherry Orchard in class. It is definitely a different humor than Goldsmith used in She Stoops To Conquer. It seems that Chekov used randomness to get laughs out of his readers. Out of the blue came Charlotte's line, "My little dog eats nuts." It was then completely disregarded by the rest of the characters. I have to disagree on KEc's opinion that the plot line has no element of comedy in it. I find it easy to picture the play so far. I imagine many characters milling about a crowded house. All their personalities are so different--they all seem to only be thinking of themselves and practically ignoring everyone else. Perhaps, KEc, this is just a comedy that we are not used to. Perhaps the fact that it was translated made the random quotes even more random. (I don't know if that makes any sense). But I have really enjoyed the humor in The Cherry Orchard so far. I get a kick out of the different personalities of the characters. They already seem to be so clear to me! I especially like Firs. :-) - KGa-c Feb 28, 2008
Although, there is no direct humor in the play so far, I too find that some of the lines are fairly humorous. Actually, I realized that some of the humor translated into Russian is actually pretty funny. In fact, some of the things they say like "It will heal by your wedding" are popular Russian proverbs. I think one of the reasons some phrases sound rediculous is that there is no good way to translate them into English. For example, it is pretty difficult to explain to a non-English speaker what "kicking the bucket" means. Similarly, I saw these problems in Chekhov's play. I started to laugh at some things that others didn't catch because I knew what Chekhov was trying to say. Further, I don't think that this play is a comedy in a traditional sense. Today, I noticed that it could develop into a tragic comedy where something sad occurs, but at the same time it is humorous. Other than that, I can't really make that much sense out of the play based on what we read in class. - KSm-c Feb 28, 2008
I also enjoyed today's reading of The Cherry Orchard. It is funnier than what I would assume just based on the fact that it is Russian. My first thought was that Russian humor would not transition well enough for the American audience such as ourselves to find humorous--but I was so wrong! It does and because it is Russian, as KSm points out, the language and names add to the humor. During class, my character was Dunyasha, and everyone had a grand time laughing at me as I miserably tried to prounounce all the Russian names that my character had to say of course. The language and their clever comments create a pefect combination for a hilarious play. I can't wait! - cdu-c Feb 28, 2008
I, too, found myself laughing during class. Although, I'm sure some of it had to do with the way my classmates were reading the lines as well as the lines themselves. We discussed how often the characters completely disregarded what the other one said and just went off on their own tangent. On the surface, it's humorous, but at the same time, it makes me a little sad to think about. I mean, imagine what it would truly be like if everytime you said something, the person you were talking to ignored you and just kept talking about themselves. This puts a gap between the characters, a distance preventing them from possible genuine bonding and a conection. We have all been in that situation though, and it's not a very pleasant feeling. It's frustrating. Is this distance between characters, this inawareness of each other intentional? What is its purpose? Is it supposed to be comedic or is there another purpose as well maybe for the audience? - AGe-c Feb 28, 2008
Brother Tom mentioned that The Cherry Orchard may challenge our definition of "comedy," but it seems to be pretty in-sync with my definition thus far! I have enjoyed laughing about the character's quirks and quotes.
I like the fact that there is utter chaos in the household... probably not very different from what my house is like! It reminds me of when I even have my large extended family over and everyone is greeting one another, chatting, and laughing. I like the atmosphere which Chekhov has created for the family. And how can anyone forget about Charlotte? She is a magician, after all! Her "little dog eats nuts" (3). Dunyasha also cracks me up because she tries to sound so much more sophisticated than she is in actuality--dressing up and using French words (4). She also sounds like she is proposed to often. She must be something! Firs is old, grumpy, and hard of hearing; Pischtchik downs an entire bottle of sleeping pills; Gayef caresses a cupboard... so far this play is a recipe for great entertainment, I would say! Time will only tell. - AWr-c Feb 28, 2008
This is definitely not a laught out loud comedy, but rather the kind of comedy that makes you chuckle a little bit here and there. I kind of liked how it was just full of these little random lines that seemed to make no sense and just make me laugh a little bit to myself. It's not the kind of comedy that we're used to where people act foolish or the general plot is foolish, but it is instead the kind of comedy where you sort of notice a few pages later exactly what was so funny and it makes you smile a little bit to yourself. On these first few pages, it's just sort of interesting seeing the family interaction when they are all reunited as it reminds me of when we got together with my dad's side of the family who we rarely see on a cruise last year in that it was just utter chaos when we were all first in a room together. We all just wanted to talk about what we wanted to talk about and everyone babbled without actually listening much to what was being said. One of my cousins even acted like Dunyasha with trying to act all sophosticated when he really wasn't. To me, what makes this play funny so far is how it is so similar to real life in some senses that it points out just how funny it is when you put distant relatives in a room together. There's no real reason why it's funny, but it just sort of is. I can't really actually explain what makes it funny, but I just sort of know it is.- KRi-c Feb 28, 2008
All this talk about comedy makes me think that this play is a satire of the Russian upperclass. In 1861, the serfs were freed by Alexander II, injuring the pride and prestige of the nobles. But the boyars (the nobles) were resistant to change. They did not want to modernize and "liberalize" as the other European powers had. I think that is what Chekhov is satirizing: the upperclass' inability to change. Take Madame Renevsky. She still lives under the illusion that she is a wealthy, illustrious lady and thus spends a lot of money, driving her deeper into debt. Her comical comments and interactions with inanimate objects like tables confirm that she is holding on to the past. Thus, Chekhov is telling the boyars in this play to realize that they are no longer powerful and accept it.- JHe-c Feb 29, 2008
I think that this play is a satire and it is partially shown by the fact that Chekhov concentrates mostly on the past. For example Firs is dressed in extremely classical clothing and although there are no children present in the nursery now, it was the home of Gayev and Lyuba. I agree with John's analysis that this play is showing the way that the upperclass refused to change and modernize. They merely chose to concentrate on the past and remain set in their ways. I also think that is play was probably funny when it was written but it lost some of its comic appeal throughout the years and when it was translated to English.- mha-c Mar 4, 2008
I'm not gonna lie--I definitely laughed out loud while reading this play, especially reading it in class. I don't know if the parts I found funny were the parts that were meant to be funny, but all the same it was comical. Some of the expressions that characters used, such as Charolette, or the insults they used, and their extensive speeches and sentimental attachment to inanimate objects, just struck me as hilarious. Gayef fawns over the cupboards in the house, and his expression of love is so great over these cupboards, you can't help but laugh a little. It's also funny because someone will say something ridiculous and no one even comments, they just keep talking like it was never even said. Also, when Pischtick decides that he's in love with Charolette due to her magical capabilities, it's funny imagining him running around after her; these aren't things you have to stretch to see the humour in. Also, the way Ranevsky continually spends money, disregarding her current situation. She realizes that she shouldn't be spending any more money, and really has nothing to back up her purchases, and yet she keeps going. She knows she should do something, but all she does is spend more. It's tragic, but it's comical at the same time. - dru-c Mar 5, 2008
Nice job applying our knowledge from AP Euro to other subjects, John. I like John's idea of the play being a satire of the upperclass. It makes sense, especially given the ending of the play, where the cherry orchard is being cut down as Madame Ranevsky leaves the house. Another good example to support this idea is the description in Act I of how Madame Ranevsky lives. The daughter, Anya, is describing how Ranevsky doesn't realize how dire her economic situation is, and continues to eat extravagant meals and leave lavish tips. This complete inability to change is accented throughout the play, and in they are defeated by the former serfs, who tear down their stronghold. That theory makes a lot of sense to me.- NVa-c Mar 5, 2008
I actually found this play really humorous. I enjoyed it quite a bit. There were so many random characters and comments that I would be sitting there and was thinking like what that's crazy. I mean the random pool comments and wanting to celebrate a 100-year-old piece of furniture were so odd that it was hard not to laugh at the stupidity of it all. I also was amused by the patheticness of some of the characters. Madame Ranevsky decided to go back to her lover and leave her daughters in Russia again even though she was like I love my beautiful girls SO much and I'm going to miss them SO much. I was like if you're going to miss them why are you leaving them, and the fact that she was being used by this dying French man made we laugh at her senselessness. - kva-c Mar 11, 2008
What I thought was ironic about this was even though there were many funny parts in the play (any time Charlotte was in the scene, odd reactions, the arguments followed by dancing etc.) I thought that overall it was more serious and even sad. It was like they were all trying to make light of their situations. Madame Ranevsky had lost just about everything from family to money to her Cherry Orchard, those living at the Cherry Orchard were about to lose their home. It's strange how many playwrights make comedies out of tragedies. This was definitely funny, but the sadness kind of canceled that out for me to make it more of a drama for me. I guess the good old Russian comedies aren't meant to give people the warm fuzzy feeling comedies do today; that's probably why they have the vodka. - LDo-c Mar 12, 2008
I remember our first day of reading the play in class and how we burst out laughing at certain moments during the first act. This was usually not because of a joke in the play, but like kec more because of how someone said a certain line or how a random line was inserted. For example, when Gayef talks to the cabinet, I believe, was really funny. It was completely random, satirical, comedic, and refreshing. I noticed that much of the comedy was added to take away from the emotional or serious scene that could be going on. I wonder, though, if Chekhov used comedy to make the play seem less serious. I doubt he wants any of his work to not seem serious, but why else would he add it? For entertainment? Attention-grabbing? Just plain comedy? - ptr-c Mar 12, 2008
I like the idea of Chekhov adding the humor to make the play seem less hurious. I have to say that it lightened the mood. I thought the entire play was very heavy for the most part. I never found myself uplifted or happy from the reading if it wasn't from a section that had some humor in it. I know I always laughed at Firs. He always spoke his mind whenever he want, wherever he wanted. It would come out of nowhere sometimes and would really catch my attention. It would take me out of this serious mood the play always put me in. I think Chekhov realized that. In order to find an audience for his play, he would have to find something that wouldn't make them stop reading or walk out of the play. The humor doesn't go overboard, but it's just the right amount. It was definitely an attention grabber, you couldn't miss the humor if you tried.- aja-c Mar 13, 2008
I definently think that this is not a comedy in the usual sense, in fact due to the ending and the overall depressiveness of losing their house, status, and nearly all the power that they had ever had coupled with the fact that in the end everything of the old world seems to be cut away makes me want to classify it more as a tradgedy than a comedy, but I'm not going to argue that this should be considered a tradgedy more than a comedy for several reasons. The first is that there are moments in this play that are decideingly funny. The ending while depressing does have a sort of dark humorish twist with Fiers being locked in house with everyone thinking that he is at a hospital safe and sound. Although this type of humor is more common in tradgies its prevalence throughout the book and the use of lighthearted humor show that Chekhov was looking for more of a comedic approach. Secondly humor in Russia may be vastly different than humor in the United States. Now having never spoken to someone from Russia I don't know if this is particularly true but it seems like a safe assumption since they live in a world that has seen alot more darker times than we have and that may have caused a change in their humor. - DGr-c
I thoroughly enjoyed reading The Cherry Orchard in class. It is definitely a different humor than Goldsmith used in She Stoops To Conquer. It seems that Chekov used randomness to get laughs out of his readers. Out of the blue came Charlotte's line, "My little dog eats nuts." It was then completely disregarded by the rest of the characters. I have to disagree on KEc's opinion that the plot line has no element of comedy in it. I find it easy to picture the play so far. I imagine many characters milling about a crowded house. All their personalities are so different--they all seem to only be thinking of themselves and practically ignoring everyone else. Perhaps, KEc, this is just a comedy that we are not used to. Perhaps the fact that it was translated made the random quotes even more random. (I don't know if that makes any sense). But I have really enjoyed the humor in The Cherry Orchard so far. I get a kick out of the different personalities of the characters. They already seem to be so clear to me! I especially like Firs. :-)
-
Although, there is no direct humor in the play so far, I too find that some of the lines are fairly humorous. Actually, I realized that some of the humor translated into Russian is actually pretty funny. In fact, some of the things they say like "It will heal by your wedding" are popular Russian proverbs. I think one of the reasons some phrases sound rediculous is that there is no good way to translate them into English. For example, it is pretty difficult to explain to a non-English speaker what "kicking the bucket" means. Similarly, I saw these problems in Chekhov's play. I started to laugh at some things that others didn't catch because I knew what Chekhov was trying to say. Further, I don't think that this play is a comedy in a traditional sense. Today, I noticed that it could develop into a tragic comedy where something sad occurs, but at the same time it is humorous. Other than that, I can't really make that much sense out of the play based on what we read in class.
-
I also enjoyed today's reading of The Cherry Orchard. It is funnier than what I would assume just based on the fact that it is Russian. My first thought was that Russian humor would not transition well enough for the American audience such as ourselves to find humorous--but I was so wrong! It does and because it is Russian, as KSm points out, the language and names add to the humor. During class, my character was Dunyasha, and everyone had a grand time laughing at me as I miserably tried to prounounce all the Russian names that my character had to say of course. The language and their clever comments create a pefect combination for a hilarious play. I can't wait! -
I, too, found myself laughing during class. Although, I'm sure some of it had to do with the way my classmates were reading the lines as well as the lines themselves. We discussed how often the characters completely disregarded what the other one said and just went off on their own tangent. On the surface, it's humorous, but at the same time, it makes me a little sad to think about. I mean, imagine what it would truly be like if everytime you said something, the person you were talking to ignored you and just kept talking about themselves. This puts a gap between the characters, a distance preventing them from possible genuine bonding and a conection. We have all been in that situation though, and it's not a very pleasant feeling. It's frustrating. Is this distance between characters, this inawareness of each other intentional? What is its purpose? Is it supposed to be comedic or is there another purpose as well maybe for the audience? -
Brother Tom mentioned that The Cherry Orchard may challenge our definition of "comedy," but it seems to be pretty in-sync with my definition thus far! I have enjoyed laughing about the character's quirks and quotes.
I like the fact that there is utter chaos in the household... probably not very different from what my house is like! It reminds me of when I even have my large extended family over and everyone is greeting one another, chatting, and laughing. I like the atmosphere which Chekhov has created for the family. And how can anyone forget about Charlotte? She is a magician, after all! Her "little dog eats nuts" (3). Dunyasha also cracks me up because she tries to sound so much more sophisticated than she is in actuality--dressing up and using French words (4). She also sounds like she is proposed to often. She must be something! Firs is old, grumpy, and hard of hearing; Pischtchik downs an entire bottle of sleeping pills; Gayef caresses a cupboard... so far this play is a recipe for great entertainment, I would say! Time will only tell. -
This is definitely not a laught out loud comedy, but rather the kind of comedy that makes you chuckle a little bit here and there. I kind of liked how it was just full of these little random lines that seemed to make no sense and just make me laugh a little bit to myself. It's not the kind of comedy that we're used to where people act foolish or the general plot is foolish, but it is instead the kind of comedy where you sort of notice a few pages later exactly what was so funny and it makes you smile a little bit to yourself. On these first few pages, it's just sort of interesting seeing the family interaction when they are all reunited as it reminds me of when we got together with my dad's side of the family who we rarely see on a cruise last year in that it was just utter chaos when we were all first in a room together. We all just wanted to talk about what we wanted to talk about and everyone babbled without actually listening much to what was being said. One of my cousins even acted like Dunyasha with trying to act all sophosticated when he really wasn't. To me, what makes this play funny so far is how it is so similar to real life in some senses that it points out just how funny it is when you put distant relatives in a room together. There's no real reason why it's funny, but it just sort of is. I can't really actually explain what makes it funny, but I just sort of know it is.-
All this talk about comedy makes me think that this play is a satire of the Russian upperclass. In 1861, the serfs were freed by Alexander II, injuring the pride and prestige of the nobles. But the boyars (the nobles) were resistant to change. They did not want to modernize and "liberalize" as the other European powers had. I think that is what Chekhov is satirizing: the upperclass' inability to change. Take Madame Renevsky. She still lives under the illusion that she is a wealthy, illustrious lady and thus spends a lot of money, driving her deeper into debt. Her comical comments and interactions with inanimate objects like tables confirm that she is holding on to the past. Thus, Chekhov is telling the boyars in this play to realize that they are no longer powerful and accept it.-
I think that this play is a satire and it is partially shown by the fact that Chekhov concentrates mostly on the past. For example Firs is dressed in extremely classical clothing and although there are no children present in the nursery now, it was the home of Gayev and Lyuba. I agree with John's analysis that this play is showing the way that the upperclass refused to change and modernize. They merely chose to concentrate on the past and remain set in their ways. I also think that is play was probably funny when it was written but it lost some of its comic appeal throughout the years and when it was translated to English.-
I'm not gonna lie--I definitely laughed out loud while reading this play, especially reading it in class. I don't know if the parts I found funny were the parts that were meant to be funny, but all the same it was comical. Some of the expressions that characters used, such as Charolette, or the insults they used, and their extensive speeches and sentimental attachment to inanimate objects, just struck me as hilarious. Gayef fawns over the cupboards in the house, and his expression of love is so great over these cupboards, you can't help but laugh a little. It's also funny because someone will say something ridiculous and no one even comments, they just keep talking like it was never even said. Also, when Pischtick decides that he's in love with Charolette due to her magical capabilities, it's funny imagining him running around after her; these aren't things you have to stretch to see the humour in. Also, the way Ranevsky continually spends money, disregarding her current situation. She realizes that she shouldn't be spending any more money, and really has nothing to back up her purchases, and yet she keeps going. She knows she should do something, but all she does is spend more. It's tragic, but it's comical at the same time. -
Nice job applying our knowledge from AP Euro to other subjects, John. I like John's idea of the play being a satire of the upperclass. It makes sense, especially given the ending of the play, where the cherry orchard is being cut down as Madame Ranevsky leaves the house. Another good example to support this idea is the description in Act I of how Madame Ranevsky lives. The daughter, Anya, is describing how Ranevsky doesn't realize how dire her economic situation is, and continues to eat extravagant meals and leave lavish tips. This complete inability to change is accented throughout the play, and in they are defeated by the former serfs, who tear down their stronghold. That theory makes a lot of sense to me.-
I actually found this play really humorous. I enjoyed it quite a bit. There were so many random characters and comments that I would be sitting there and was thinking like what that's crazy. I mean the random pool comments and wanting to celebrate a 100-year-old piece of furniture were so odd that it was hard not to laugh at the stupidity of it all. I also was amused by the patheticness of some of the characters. Madame Ranevsky decided to go back to her lover and leave her daughters in Russia again even though she was like I love my beautiful girls SO much and I'm going to miss them SO much. I was like if you're going to miss them why are you leaving them, and the fact that she was being used by this dying French man made we laugh at her senselessness.
-
What I thought was ironic about this was even though there were many funny parts in the play (any time Charlotte was in the scene, odd reactions, the arguments followed by dancing etc.) I thought that overall it was more serious and even sad. It was like they were all trying to make light of their situations. Madame Ranevsky had lost just about everything from family to money to her Cherry Orchard, those living at the Cherry Orchard were about to lose their home. It's strange how many playwrights make comedies out of tragedies. This was definitely funny, but the sadness kind of canceled that out for me to make it more of a drama for me. I guess the good old Russian comedies aren't meant to give people the warm fuzzy feeling comedies do today; that's probably why they have the vodka.
-
I remember our first day of reading the play in class and how we burst out laughing at certain moments during the first act. This was usually not because of a joke in the play, but like kec more because of how someone said a certain line or how a random line was inserted. For example, when Gayef talks to the cabinet, I believe, was really funny. It was completely random, satirical, comedic, and refreshing. I noticed that much of the comedy was added to take away from the emotional or serious scene that could be going on. I wonder, though, if Chekhov used comedy to make the play seem less serious. I doubt he wants any of his work to not seem serious, but why else would he add it? For entertainment? Attention-grabbing? Just plain comedy? -
I like the idea of Chekhov adding the humor to make the play seem less hurious. I have to say that it lightened the mood. I thought the entire play was very heavy for the most part. I never found myself uplifted or happy from the reading if it wasn't from a section that had some humor in it. I know I always laughed at Firs. He always spoke his mind whenever he want, wherever he wanted. It would come out of nowhere sometimes and would really catch my attention. It would take me out of this serious mood the play always put me in. I think Chekhov realized that. In order to find an audience for his play, he would have to find something that wouldn't make them stop reading or walk out of the play. The humor doesn't go overboard, but it's just the right amount. It was definitely an attention grabber, you couldn't miss the humor if you tried.-
I definently think that this is not a comedy in the usual sense, in fact due to the ending and the overall depressiveness of losing their house, status, and nearly all the power that they had ever had coupled with the fact that in the end everything of the old world seems to be cut away makes me want to classify it more as a tradgedy than a comedy, but I'm not going to argue that this should be considered a tradgedy more than a comedy for several reasons. The first is that there are moments in this play that are decideingly funny. The ending while depressing does have a sort of dark humorish twist with Fiers being locked in house with everyone thinking that he is at a hospital safe and sound. Although this type of humor is more common in tradgies its prevalence throughout the book and the use of lighthearted humor show that Chekhov was looking for more of a comedic approach. Secondly humor in Russia may be vastly different than humor in the United States. Now having never spoken to someone from Russia I don't know if this is particularly true but it seems like a safe assumption since they live in a world that has seen alot more darker times than we have and that may have caused a change in their humor.
-